If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The play had is importance, no doubt. So did the interception that Eli threw. That was in the red zone. Have to assume that took point off the board no? Also, this play in no way means he didn't play well. It was a great defensive play. The defense was great the entire post season.

Rodgers threw a pick in the game, too. So, he committed 2 of the Pack's 5 turnovers. It's not like Rodgers played lights out that game save for a couple of missed passes. He committed a couple turnovers and overthrew several passes (one of which would have been another TD [the missed pass to Finley, I believe it was]).

Also, the LoS on Eli's interception wasn't in the redzone, it was on the 35. For arguments sake, let's say that it was just an incomplete pass, we would have been left with a 52 or 53 yard FG attempt which, if we're being honest, Tynes likely wouldn't have made. Scoring a TD on that drive was far from certain. Definitely nothing like the play that Rodgers fumbled on or his overthrow of Finley.

Since this thread -- as meandering as it's been -- is centered ultimately around Eli and his overall level of play, and not some hypothetical "player who performed poorly on a winning team, let's stick to him.

How many Giants wins since the middle of 2004 have involved games that Eli "played poorly" in?

Are you suggesting Eli "played poorly" in any of the 8 post season games--out of a total of 11--the Giants have won since 2004? If so, which ones would you make that claim for?

If you are not suggesting the above question concerning Eli, then why are you even bringing up the hypothetical "player who performed poorly on a winning team"??

You have now disintegrated into a transition to the hypothetical to support an opinion, rather than adhere to the subject at hand. You have the right to do so, but it does nothing for your argument, and smells kinda desperate. You're better than that.

I think my examples just made things more convoluted. It was my parting post as I left work.

I'm merely saying that I find issue with your statement that a player's performance can rise and fall with the outcome of the game. In Eli's case, the fact that he won 2 SBs didn't make his personal performance for those years any worse or any better. As you said in so many words, football is the ultimate team sport.

And to be fair, i often use real life examples because that's how I think when it comes to the Giants. I have little emotional attachment to any player and quite frankly I treat them all as chess pieces. I tend to look at things very abstractly.

I disagree with the "everything" part, yes. I wrote a long (I get long-winded at times, I admit) post to that effect, a few pages back.

Winning--in professional sports, certainly--is everything. Playing well consistently is an important component and contributor to winning.

"Everything" and "important component" are not the same thing.

There is one big difference here. You win as a team. You perform as an individual. So as an individual, the best you can do is perform well. Whether or not you win or lose is more or less out of your control.

And yes, performing well, even in losses is very important. It's essentially saying that you weren't part of the reason your team lost and you did your work.